Bad PR, but possibly justified legally. Another shade of grey.

I totally agree with J&J here. Red Cross is and has eben doing some pretty unscrupulous things over the past 10 years. This is just one that finally affects somebody who can sue and do something about it.
While people were swimming in NOLA during Katrina, tons of items were donated to red cross including money earmarked for NOLA, that never made it there beacause of the leadership of that organization.
My mom was working fo the parish government in Ascension (about 50 miles west of NOLA) at the time of all the relocations. They learned fast to not accept help from the Red Cross because they made things worse, like putting their employees in 300 a night hotels and having the parish pay for them while they put peple up in 35 a week hotels. Tons more things were done that my family saw first hand by this bunch of crooks.
It became clear very fast that the parish could house more people without the red cross' help than with it.
So, in no way does it suprise me that they wuld steal from the hand that fed them their logo, and not only steal, but steal and sell it to their benefactors' competition.
grrrrr

Well put!!

If Johnson and Johnson had only been interested in protecting their symbol, they could simply request that its use in this way be terminated by the Red Cross, but instead they ask for reparations and the destruction of products, things that will take money from the Red Cross and impede their ability to respond to disasters and support the American troops in Iraq and Afganistan.

When I see a Johnson and Johnson relief truck responding to tornado victims in Kansas, or when I see Johnson & Johnson packages arriving for soldiers and when I see Johnson and Johnson checking on the conditions or American POWs then I'll start buying their products again.

These aren't red cross products that will be destroyed

The products that would be destroyed if J&J's Judgement is acted upon are not owned or produced by the Red Cross. A private company licensed the brand from Red Cross for products that directly compete with J&J. J&J must protect their brand.

If these other organizations wanted to use the brand - perhaps they should have approached J&J. The Red Cross was trying to make a profit in private industry - an argument could be made that such an action would be outside the purvue of their original scope. This is not surprising considering the embarrasment it has become. The only other charity that is more embarressing is the United Way.

Nothing listed in the articles discloses the private negotiations that have been ongoing between the two litigants. The articles do list that there have been ongoing negotiations over the last several months that have broken down and lead to the lawsuit that has been filed. You have made the assumption that it is J&J who is being unreasonable in this dispute. I can see where J&J is coming from. Their Trademark emblem is being sold by a group that they allowed to use it in good faith for a century without their consent.

And just to give some contrast to this, it was The Red Cross that tried to sue video game companies for using the red cross emblem on first aid packs in their games. They also wanted to go after first aid kit manufacturers for using the symbol without their permission. Some choice quotes on that issue.

"it also encourages others to believe that the emblem of the Red Cross is "public property" and can be freely used by any organization or indeed for commercial purposes."
"We have been involved in legal action against companies involved in first aid, against companies involved in medical products."
- David Pratt
link

If Red Cross can sue companies and government agencies over the use of the symbol what makes it so wrong for J&J to do the same to them. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Are J&J right for seeking punitive damages, thats questionable I would say no and it's a dick move. Asking that the products bearing their trademark be removed from the market and destroyed seems reasonable and I believe is standard practice in trademark disputes.

However, as I said you have to remove the emotional reaction to actually see the validity of the argument. Thus the reason Red Cross is working to frame this as Big Pharma vs non-profit aid agency.

The Red Cross doesn't belong to J&J

Hmmm, The only reason the internationally recognized symbol of medical attention is known as the red cross is because of the Red Cross. The ICRC (International Committe of the Red Cross) was founded in 1863 while Johnson & Johnson got going in 1876. Not long between the two, but definately long enough. The founding of the Red Cross took place in Geneva, Switzerland (hmmm, the symbol looks strangely like that of Switzerland's too, imagine that!) and is the basis of all we know about the Geneva Convention. Anybody that has served in the military or traveled outside the US knows that the Red Cross (ICRC), not Johnson & Johnson, is responsible for establishing codes of international conduct for the ethical treatment of prisonors of war (POWs), care for refugees, medical aid in developing countries and numerous other programs.
The entire reason that EVERY first aid container has the red cross on it isn't b/c of J&J, but yet again, the Red Cross.

Re: The Red Cross doesn't belong to J&J

And it was the Red Cross which started suing companies for using the Red Cross Emblem, not J&J. Again, good for the goose, good for the gander.

ONLINE - DRUGSTORE!

ONLINE - DRUGSTORE!
PRICES of ALL MEDICINES!

FIND THAT NECESSARY...
VIAGRA, CIALIS, PHENTERMINE, SOMA... and other pills!

Welcome please: pills-prices.blogspot.com


NEW INFORMATION ABOUT PAYDAY LOANS!

Welcome please: payday-d-loans.blogspot.com

GOOD LUCK!